[2014 EOYT] England v Australia

[Mikel92]

as usual the entire world-wide community for a sport blames the coach based solely on results, as if there weren't 80min before the final score was settled. Results are important and for sure 3 out of 4 sounds pretty bad, but again it's an away tour and defenses have tightened up tremendously over the past two RWC cycles. The one team that was supposed to trip up again was France but they woke up temporarily for just that test in Paris against the Wallabies, the Irish are peaking like never before and still those two confrontations ended in the narrowest 3-point defeat. Then England in desperate need of a result before tackling the next 6N and hosting of the RWC were starving and played with incredible workrate, activity and commitment. They didn't leak too much, and power up front simply has no substitute or repellant in Rugby Union.

Now back to Cheika and this Wallabies tour of Europe, it wasn't bad in content. Their last tour in 2013 was nothing short of excellent, so surely in comparison this tour paleos, no cheerios (it's my new expression). But the Wallabies played their regular intelligent, adaptive, quick Rugby with variety and excellent skill.

Agree there were good patches for Australia. In fact, in the first half they did create multiple attacking opportunities. If they could have nailed those, then the result may have been a bit different. To be fair there's only so much Cheika, or any coach can do before the players actually have to catch the ball or not throw high passes like Phipps was doing. But I don't think any criticism, at least on this forum, has been directed at results alone. There are decisions happening internally concerning next year and Cheika's strategy. Hey, maybe it'll work, but I don't think his organization of what he's doing next year is wise. His mentality as a coach is also questionable. If you're shattering glass in the coaches box when things get tough at Super-rugby then what the hell is going on over there? Yeah he brought the 'Tahs up to victory (on the back of a very questionable penalty at their home ground), but you can't throw your toys out of the pram at Int level.

Agree though they were tough games. Especially Ireland. But there is no excuse for that scrum. It wasn't world class under McKenzie but I don't remember it doing that.

 

[Big Ewis]

Chris Robshaw dis team's sugar daddy. He don't want his *****es to be crazy, he just want em to work and uurn. He a good pimp, take care of his chickens, look after em. He gots to show the example.

 

[j'nuh]

Chris Robshaw dis team's sugar daddy. He don't want his *****es to be crazy, he just want em to work and uurn. He a good pimp, take care of his chickens, look after em. He gots to show the example.

.. what?

edit: Actually, forget I asked. Sometimes I just don't want to know...

 

[smartcooky]

Now back to Cheika and this Wallabies tour of Europe, it wasn't bad in content. Their last tour in 2013 was nothing short of excellent, so surely in comparison this tour paleos, no cheerios (it's my new expression). But the Wallabies played their regular intelligent, adaptive, quick Rugby with variety and excellent skill.

Rod Kafer needs to first of all swallow that fried chicken when he speaks, it's downright indecent although I understand it's a good tactic to keep food available in case of an imminent stomach growl - but second of all yeah playing "Super Rugby at Test level" does work. They beat Wales with it (and Wales got 7 whole points from scrum dominance) and almost got France and Ireland in their own backyard too.
The Wallabies aren't now going to go through a fkng existential crisis and rethink their entire culture of Rugby Union and running schemes and tactics lore because they lost a pretty tight affair in Twickenham to some starving Englishmen.

You're papering over the cracks Big Ewis.

The Wallabies have been deficient in numbers 1, 2 and 3 for several years now. They have at best been barely able to compete at scrum time; at worst pretty much owned by every major team they have come up against. In fact, for a good deal of time, they actually did everything they could to avoid genuinely competing. I recall a 3N match against the All Blacks a few years back where the Wallabies had the feed to five or six scrums in the first half, and George Gregan was able to effectively delay by ******* around until the scrum went down. Every scrum on their feed went down and was reset, often more than once. Gregan ended up not putting the ball in at all for the whole 40 minutes, and all their scrums ended up in free kicks or penalty kicks, some each way.

The ARU seem to have concentrated a good deal of its efforts at trying to change the nature and laws of the game to diminish the importance of the scrum rather than addressing the serious problems they have with lack of front row players. It would be interesting to see how many different front row players have played for the Wallabies in the last five years compared with, say New Zealand and South Africa.

Now teams with deficient scrummaging may well be able to win some games through sheer skills in their backs, but backs can't show how skilful they are without the ball, and teams like England, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa will work out very quickly that they have scrum and maul dominance, they will smell blood in the water, and they will shut the game down and keep it tight and keep the ball for themselves. This is especially so in a world cup.

 

[Big Ewis]

.. what?

edit: Actually, forget I asked. Sometimes I just don't want to know...

dude, please just, okay, don't talk to me like I'm the one being absurd and weird or wtvr...you're wearing an avatar that says "Joe Marler"...his name is Moe Jarler. MOE JARLER. Everybody's just going to go calling him Joe Marler like nothing's ever happened, like it's all good..anyways.

and Kentucky Fried Cooky I'm not toilet papering over the cracks of the Wallabies, I know their scrum kind of sucks phallus (which is scary for France, given we were backpedaling against THAT, last summer :cryy: :cryy.
I was just yappin about the Wallabies in general and their trip to Europe last November, which wasn't too long ago, and wasn't bad..
Say, you really should wear a Christmas hat over those ref cards of yours, get into the mainstream TRF spirit and bond with your fellow TRF inmates.

 

[Mikel92]

You're papering over the cracks Big Ewis.

The Wallabies have been deficient in numbers 1, 2 and 3 for several years now. They have at best been barely able to compete at scrum time; at worst pretty much owned by every major team they have come up against. In fact, for a good deal of time, they actually did everything they could to avoid genuinely competing. I recall a 3N match against the All Blacks a few years back where the Wallabies had the feed to five or six scrums in the first half, and George Gregan was able to effectively delay by ******* around until the scrum went down. Every scrum on their feed went down and was reset, often more than once. Gregan ended up not putting the ball in at all for the whole 40 minutes, and all their scrums ended up in free kicks or penalty kicks, some each way.

The ARU seem to have concentrated a good deal of its efforts at trying to change the nature and laws of the game to diminish the importance of the scrum rather than addressing the serious problems they have with lack of front row players. It would be interesting to see how many different front row players have played for the Wallabies in the last five years compared with, say New Zealand and South Africa.

Now teams with deficient scrummaging may well be able to win some games through sheer skills in their backs, but backs can't show how skilful they are without the ball, and teams like England, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa will work out very quickly that have scrum and maul dominance, they will smell blood in the water, and they will shut the game down and keep it tight and keep the ball for themselves. This is especially so in a world cup.

Remember the days of Rodney Blake and Greg Holmes? That was horror show. To be fair we did have Carl Heyman who'd make anyone look bad, but they were pretty awful no matter who the opposition was. Those two men summed up Australia's long-term problem really. Two big men who can run like the wind if they get going, but couldn't do the core forward tasks for crap.

 

[smartcooky]

Remember the days of Rodney Blake and Greg Holmes? That was horror show. To be fair we did have Carl Heyman who'd make anyone look bad, but they were pretty awful no matter who the opposition was. Those two men summed up Australia's long-term problem really. Two big men who can run like the wind if they get going, but couldn't do the core forward tasks for crap.

Rodzilla? He was a bit like rugby's version of the "Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy".... mostly harmless....and Greg Holes, the less said the better!

Then there's the hooker position and Tai McIsaac. Nuff said!!!


The last decent, capable prop forward they had was loosehead Bill Young. Pretty much their FR trio of Patricio Noriega, Jeremy Paul and Bill Young was the best they had for quite some time, and they have had nothing to approach that quality since.... note, and one of those was nicked from Argentina, another nicked from New Zealand!

 

[Draggs]

I've said on here many times that the ARU are too focussed on finding backs and ignoring the pack. Once again it has bitten them hard. Sure Folau and all are great, but is it really worth that much when they don't get anything from their front row? The SR teams are too busy trying to make up the numbers finding ITM and CC players to develop anything up front. Some might cry that less back-oriented rugby will doom rugby behind league and AFL, but with the lack of any grunt, the Wallabies aren't able to be that successful side the ARU needs to keep fans. Bulk =/= skill. Look at Skelton. Sure he can lumber over for a try, but he completely messes up the scrum, he simply doesn't fit. If you follow the bigger is better crowds though...

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Good chat about our front row, that's exactly what i'm talking about. it's obvious to every Aussie rugby fan what the problem is but for some reason the ARU seem to put their time and effort into messing around instead of addressing the root cause of the problem. Scrums and mauls are an integral part of our game and we love them, don't try to take them out of the game. if you want to play league, go play league!!

Arguably the last time I remember us having "decent props" was when we had Andrew Blades and Richard Harry. consequently Andrew Blades is our scrum coach!!! WTF is or isn't he doing???
Bill Young wasn't bad, and Ben Darwin too until his career was cut short through injury. jeremy paul was also good but for some reason was discarded by John Conolly if I remember. since then we've had some shockers. I think Guy Shepherdson was my all time favourite, closely followed by baxter.

Being a Rebels fan, i'm impressed with how Paul Alo-Emile is coming along but sadly he has signed with Stade Francais now.... another one lost. so i'm pinning all my hopes on bloody Tongan Thor. i sure hope he's as good as his reputation.

 

[Jaguares]

Good chat about our front row, that's exactly what i'm talking about. it's obvious to every Aussie rugby fan what the problem is but for some reason the ARU seem to put their time and effort into messing around instead of addressing the root cause of the problem. Scrums and mauls are an integral part of our game and we love them, don't try to take them out of the game. if you want to play league, go play league!!

Arguably the last time I remember us having "decent props" was when we had Andrew Blades and Richard Harry. consequently Andrew Blades is our scrum coach!!! WTF is or isn't he doing???
Bill Young wasn't bad, and Ben Darwin too until his career was cut short through injury. jeremy paul was also good but for some reason was discarded by John Conolly if I remember. since then we've had some shockers. I think Guy Shepherdson was my all time favourite, closely followed by baxter.

Being a Rebels fan, i'm impressed with how Paul Alo-Emile is coming along but sadly he has signed with Stade Francais now.... another one lost. so i'm pinning all my hopes on bloody Tongan Thor. i sure hope he's as good as his reputation.

I'm not sure if Tongan Thor is the solution for Wallaby front row. Everything I have heard and read about him are his abilities to run the ball and move like a winger.

I never heard about his scrum skills or if he's a lethal tackler. Maybe he ends up playing at the centre and he could be the new Bastareaud

 

[InsaneAsylum]

I'm not sure if Tongan Thor is the solution for Wallaby front row. Everything I have heard and read about him are his abilities to run the ball and move like a winger.

I never heard about his scrum skills or if he's a lethal tackler. Maybe he ends up playing at the centre and he could be the new Bastareaud

Rugby would be so much cooler if they had a pie eating contest at half time. Tongan Thor vs. Bastareaud would be epic!

 

[Mikel92]

I'm sure ol Matt Dunning would get in on that one!

Side note: think I read Barritt made like 16 tackles in this game? I get that can happen if the traffic goes down your channel, but still. That's massive for a back.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm sure ol Matt Dunning would get in on that one!

He's also good for drop goals when you need to score tries.

 

[thechosenfamily]

I'm sure ol Matt Dunning would get in on that one!

Side note: think I read Barritt made like 16 tackles in this game? I get that can happen if the traffic goes down your channel, but still. That's massive for a back.

Not as massive as his face is currently after the battering it took Saturday.

 

[Jaguares]

Rugby would be so much cooler if they had a pie eating contest at half time. Tongan Thor vs. Bastareaud would be epic!

Yeah but Wallabies don't need a centre. Any top class NRL player could be a top class centre in Union. Wallabies need a top class tight head and locks. Tongan Thor is not the solution.

ARU must buy young Georgian props, are cheaper and resistant

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Yeah but Wallabies don't need a centre. Any top class NRL player could be a top class centre in Union. Wallabies need a top class tight head and locks. Tongan Thor is not the solution.

ARU must buy young Georgian props, are cheaper and resistant

Well at the saints we have a top class Australian tight head. If he went back home though I bet he wouldn't get picked despite being the current best scrummaging Australian around.

 

[Big Ewis]

the front row is a toughie in this day and age. Much more is expected from the props today compared to the past decades, and help around the park has become primordial. We have this big issue in France now where we're trying to modernize and keep with the times especially with our tight 5 where others have evolved and we've been stagnant and rigid with our picks, but are now changing.

For example our second rows are only now starting to change, but Pascal Papé is your old school ruck/contact warrior and we're trying to implement new profiles like a much slimmer/taller Alex Flanquart or Vahaamahina who just never seems to blossom to even half potential sadly...

And now back to the front row, the LH position is a very tough one for us right now because we either have old school strong scrummagers who are obsolete or a step too slow for the play in the loose (Iguiniz, Brugnaut, J.B.Poux), or we have more modern profiles who do well in the loose but aren't as good in the scrum (Ben Arous notably).

So right now I understand the dilemma from coaches to pick props right in between both vital aptitudes, a guy who happens to be tossed/stocky, develops the right scrummaging ability AND is an all-out athlete who can hold up 60/80min while tackling, carrying and helping at the breakdown a lot (even turning over at best), all the while insuring basic Rugby skills like catching, passing the ball, running support lines...
Quite a program for physical specimens who very recently were basically fat guys who did some pushing every now and then during a match.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

For all the talk of bad journalism on the other thread I'm happy to say I agree entirely with this posted (extract here) by Tom Fordyce. Albeit little that hasn't been already said on these boards...

There are reasons for optimism, most importantly the impressive displays of the undercooked understudies in a pack missing six British and Irish Lions, not least the settling-in at international level of winger Jonny May and the blooding of 20-year-old Anthony Watson.

Beyond that? Brad Barritt proved he is relentless in defence. Courtney Lawes is a second row who can chop men down and run through them with equal alacrity. Chris Robshaw will run and burrow and tackle and carry all day long.

All that we knew too.

On Saturday, England's forwards, for the fourth time in four weeks, won plenty of possession. For the first time this autumn, their half-backs played in a way that allowed that set-piece supremacy to be exploited - kicking to the corners, for territory, beyond the defence and in front of them.

Where against the All Blacks and Springboks there was often panic, this time there was pragmatism.


Too often there was also a predictability and lack of precision with ball in hand.
Lancaster was keen to point out afterwards that his team have scored 28 tries in this calendar year, with 21 of them coming from the backs and 13 from the back three.
They have also left plenty out there. On Saturday they were typically industrious but often easy to read. Having Barritt bash the ball up the middle is one tactic. It should not be the principal one.
That lack of variety, of dummy runs, made England easy to read. Twice in promising positions, Billy Twelvetrees was caught man and ball by an onrushing defence when a little more ingenuity and surprise would have spared his bruises.

Lancaster's strategies have been disrupted by injury. A fit Manu Tuilagi would have given his side an uncomplicated threat that is almightily hard to negate.
They have also been upset by a selection policy that has lacked consistency and veered towards the puzzling.

It is laudable to try new faces and combinations. It is sensible too to give them time to bed in, let alone flourish.

Many pundits thought fly-half George Ford should have started for England from the first autumn Test
Ford should have been handed his opportunity earlier, not least because Farrell was out of form and desperately short of game-time after an injury-disrupted start to the season. A full debut against the world champions is a formidable prospect. So too is facing them after a solitary run-out for your club.

Kyle Eastmond was thrown in at inside centre against the best two sides in the world when Farrell inside him was struggling to keep his head above water. When his Bath team-mate Ford came in, he was gone from the squad.

Ford and Farrell were tried together. The experiment lasted just over an hour.

Stick or twist? It is an unenviable choice sometimes for a head coach, but it is arguably his primary concern. Lancaster has backed young guns in the pack and been rewarded for his hunches. In the backs he has seemed to make his picks under pressure and slightly panicked.

 

[goodNumber10]

to be fair i think a lot of his picks in the backline have been enforced through injury:

Tuilagi, Burrell, Yarde, Roko, Eastmond have all been injured leading up to or within the series. We could have been looking at a backline with two changes (barritt and Roko) instead we started with one showing 4 and 3 untested combo's. That will have an impact on any teams cohesion.

I like Fordyce, i think he's a good Journo but I think people are overly criticising a back line that was enforced rather than selected and the decisions around band aiding the midfield.

Yeah couple of puzzlers, Eastmond seemingly dropped for the last game, and the Farrell question which we're not going to agree on.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Well thing is, even not agreeing on the Farrell question I can still say that having made the decision to try Farrell at 12 he should have stuck by it longer... :s. I do think they panicked a bit when they changed it after only an hour.

No doubt that Tuilagi and Burrell are big losses. Yarde I'm fast losing faith in... I think we might have won another game with the first two fit.
Even allowing for this, there'll always be in the back of my mind the "Yeah but, frankly, with our resources, we should have been able to do better"